Should an impairment, when controlled by medication or assistive devices, qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA")? The United States Supreme Court recently heard oral argument on this issue in two cases from the Tenth Circuit, Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893 (10th Cir. 1997) and Murphy v. United Parcel Service, 141 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 1998).
In 1992, Karen Sutton and Kimberly Hinton, twin sisters, applied for commercial airline pilot positions with United Air Lines, Inc. At their interviews, the sisters, who are substantially nearsighted but have 20/20 vision when wearing corrective lenses, were informed that their uncorrected vision disqualified them from pilot positions with United. The sisters commenced an action against United under the ADA, alleging that United discriminated against them in the hiring process by rejecting their applications based on their vision "disability".
United moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the sisters were not disabled within the meaning of the ADA because, with corrective lenses, their vision did not "substantially limit a major life activity". The district court agreed with United, stating that with corrective measures, the sisters were "able to function identically to individuals without a similar impairment," and thus were not substantially limited in the major life activity of seeing.
The sisters appealed arguing that they are disabled because their uncorrected vision substantially limits their major life activity of seeing. In support of their argument, they relied on the EEOC Interpretive Guidance, which provides that the disability determination "must be made on a case by case basis, without regard to mitigating measures such as medicines, or assistive or prosthetic devices." United responded that the EEOC's Interpretive Guidance is in direct conflict with the ADA's language requiring that the physical or mental impairment "substantially limit" a major life activity, and the court should determine whether the sisters are "disabled" with their corrective lenses.
Acknowledging that other courts are divided on this issue, the Tenth Circuit rejected the relevant portion of the EEOC Interpretive Guidance and held that "the determination of whether an individual's impairment substantially limits a major life activity should take into consideration mitigating or corrective measures utilized by the individuals." Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing the complaint, finding that sisters failed to show that their corrected vision substantially limits the major life activity of seeing.
Soon after its decision in Sutton, the Tenth Circuit reviewed the same issue in Murphy v. United Parcel Service. In August 1994, Vaughn Murphy applied to UPS as a truck mechanic. As part of the application process, he submitted to a physical examination and his blood pressure was 186/124. He began working at UPS in mid-August. Upon review of Murphy's file in mid-September, 1994, a UPS nurse determined that his blood pressure exceeded DOT safety standards for commercial truck drivers. As a result, UPS terminated Murphy's employment on October 5, 1994.
Murphy challenged the termination, arguing that UPS discriminated against him on the basis of his "disability" in violation of the ADA. The district court considered Murphy's hypertension in its medicated state in determining whether it qualified as a disability under the ADA. Finding that Murphy's hypertension, when medicated, did not "substantially limit a major life activity," the district court found that no rational fact-finder could conclude that Murphy is an individual with a disability under the ADA and dismissed his complaint.
On appeal, Murphy argued that his high blood pressure, without medication, substantially limits various life activities, including working. Applying its prior holding in Sutton that an impairment should be considered in its "corrected" state, the Tenth Circuit found that the testimony of Murphy's own doctor (who testified that when Murphy is medicated he "functions normally doing everyday activity that an everyday person does") was persuasive, concluded that Murphy's hypertension did not substantially limit a major life activity, and affirmed the judgment of the district court.
The plaintiffs in Sutton and Murphy have petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear their appeals. The decisions that will be handed down by the Supreme Court, and the opinions that will no doubt follow them, will significantly impact upon whether individuals may seek recovery under the ADA against employers, and the way employers defend against such claims. If you should have any questions about how these decisions will affect your business, please contact us by telephone or e-mail as set forth below.
The information provided herein is for general guidance on matters of interest only. While every effort has been made to ensure the information provided herein is accurate and timely, no decision should be made or action taken on the basis of this information without first consulting an Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. professional.
